Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID management for IETF 115 London

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

That comparison seems a reasonable question.

I am not a statistician or an epidemiologist, so I may have gotten the 
comparatives wrong.

Looking at the data for Pennsylvania as reported by the New York Times, 
they report for a week 25 cases per 100,000 people.  The highest County 
reports 60 cases per 100,000.  Rounding our rate to 2.5 percent, and our 
attendance to 500 just to keep things simple, our experience would be a 
rate of 500 cases per 100,000 people per week.  So yes, attending the 
IETF meeting does seem to be related to a significant increase in risk 
even with the rules we had in place.

If I have misunderstood the data, I hope  someone who knows more will 
correct me.

Yours,

Joel

On 8/15/2022 3:39 PM, Margaret Cullen wrote:
>
> Do we have any idea how the percentage of IETF attendees infected with 
> COVID during the IETF week compares to the percentage who would have 
> been infected if they stayed home?
>
> Margaret
>
>
>> On Aug 12, 2022, at 6:07 PM, Mike Bishop <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> And this, in my opinion, is the primary goal. It is a useful 
>> secondary goal to minimize excess exposure to CoVID among 
>> participants relative to the exposure we would have had without an 
>> IETF meeting. But the primary goal of the IETF's precautions is to 
>> ensure enough attendees are willing to take the risk of coming to 
>> ensure a successful meeting.
>>
>> The recommendations as stated strike an excellent balance between 
>> comforting the nervous, reducing transmission where possible, and 
>> minimizing burden on attendees.
>>
>> Sent from Nine <http://www.9folders.com/>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Eric Orth <ericorth=[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 12, 2022 2:25 PM
>> *To:* [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID 
>> management for IETF 115 London
>>
>> Scientifically beneficial or not (I'm not going to get into that 
>> debate), the proposals Jay has outlined would go a long way towards 
>> making me feel comfortable attending an international conference, so 
>> I support those proposals.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 5:03 PM Yaron Sheffer <[e-mail]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>     +1 to Marc.
>>
>>     *From: *114attendees <[e-mail]> on behalf of
>>     Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>
>>     *Date: *Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 0:00
>>     *To: *Ross Finlayson <[e-mail]>,
>>     [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>>     *Subject: *Re: [114attendees] [114all] Consultation on COVID
>>     management for IETF 115 London
>>
>>     We should do better than that.  Except for the couple of first
>>     days of IETF 114, the policy was stronger than what was
>>     recommended locally and that's the reason why I will go to
>>     London.  FTR I support everything Jay proposed.
>>
>>     On 8/12/22 13:34, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>     > I think that the IETF (and IETFers) should avoid straying into
>>     areas outside their areas of expertise, and just follow whatever
>>     policy is recommended by the locality where each meeting is held.
>>     >
>>     >        Ross.
>>     >
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Marc Petit-Huguenin
>>     Email: [e-mail]
>>     Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
>>     Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
>>
>>     -- 
>>     114attendees mailing list
>>     [e-mail]
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees
>>
>> -- 
>> 114attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/114attendees
>
>